This is the future that Republicans want

ftw this is cheaper than what I pay now

But all those packages combined is less than what I pay for 150mb/s currently. Plus anyone with half a brain can OpenDNS+VPN. I don't get why it's a big deal. ISPs will price gauge either way. It's just a different pricing model

this just feeds into my data hoarding

>he thinks the ISP is selling games

Attached: laughing_girls.png (449x401, 490K)

Is ending net neutrality actually going to have an effect? So far literally nothing has happened.

Because we (the left) are winning.

(You)

Chances are you now have a data cap. Mobile carriers are free to throttle and call it "unlimited data". Things have changed but you haven't been watching.

being pro-gov intervention? in the internet? because that can't go bad, can it?

The conditions, exclusivity, and red tape set by the current isps means there never really will be an isp free market in the states.

At best there will be a bunch of 5G mvnos fighting cable companies and perhaps 5 ftth providers, but even that future is unfortunately questionable.

Jow Forums like to think they're cyberpunks without realising half of that means being punk (see: anti-state /and/ corporate authority, more commonly referred to as anti-capitalist).

Daily reminder that bizarro-Jow Forums (aka /leftypol/) is always wrong, and Jow Forums is a certified nazi-fascist board.

No.

"Net Neutrality" is code word for government payback to the leftist content provider industry in the form of forcing the network infrastructure industry to subsidise them,

Net Neutrality is a fight between content providers and network providers, and should be worked out between them without one of them using the government to force the other to give them what they want.

Of course every content provider is screaming up and down about the end of the world for consumers if we don't have net neutrality. Obviously, nothing happened.

data caps exist
some providers don't count traffic toward that cap if it's with a partner service, eg. netflix

poo in loo a shit

It's not even left or right at this point. I'm first an anarchocapitalist and second a fascist (start complimentary helicopter rides in case of emergency), but even I'm against this repeal. The free market can't fix it because of all the artificial barriers of entry the state imposes on the ISP market.

Punk means questioning all authority and subverting any authority you don't agree with. You don't have to disagree with everything, that's called being an edgy shitlord, not punk.
t. edgy shitlord

Attached: It's (((their))) fault I'm not popular!.jpg (750x415, 112K)

As I said, the free market will fix this.
Protip: the USA are as much about freedom as the Public Republic of China is a republic.

>All these things that didn't go away during NN are going to happen with the repeal NN
Wow way to regurgitate talking points there NPCs.

Data caps and throttling were banned under NN (which by the way was scrapped before taking effect).

>It was banned under NN
>But it wasn't
>But we will have all these bad things happen if we repeal
This is some doublethink tier mental gymnastics.

Next, Right to Repair & Modify

Attached: too slow.jpg (369x418, 59K)

Data caps were not banned under Net Neutrality.

>Things have changed but you haven't been watching.
Major websites like Google purposely adding .3 second to response time to trick people isn't a real change.

>ea instead of origin
>world of warcraft instead of battle.net
>napster
>blogger
>ask
God how old is this bait.

I’m surprised Republicunts aren’t against this.

Miss me with that reddit bullshit fag

Attached: net nootrality.png (832x770, 120K)

Net neutrality has nothing to do with packaged internet plans or data caps, that's just plebbit propaganda.

Attached: reddit-net-neutrality.png (670x503, 306K)

Can we get a definitive definition on exactly wtf "net neutrality" is and entails that everybody agrees on before we argue whether it's good or bad?

the amount of opposition to net neutrality only further cements my opinion that we are already living in a cyberpunk world, just without any of the "good" parts. Instead of being high tech low life, we are low tech low life.
Not only are there a few mega corporations that spy on virtually everyone, but they are so influential that they (along with the government) have brainwashed people into believing that these blatantly anti consumer practices are beneficial.

Attached: 1479796605421.jpg (698x658, 120K)

>expecting huge ISPs to suddenly implement strict data caps and throttle traffic

The change has to be subtle in order to take into effect. To someone accustomed to instant results, I can see how that could be difficult to understand. However, realize that your Jewish masters are in control and do it so gradually that it turns into indifference.

It's those exact big corporations pushing for NN you dumb fuck.YOU are the brainwashed one.

So its either let content creators let users pick their shitty service or let providers dictate which service is best. I'd rather give the keys to apple, amazon, or google and ignore them than be forced to use Spectrum approved content hosting.

There are "big corporations" pushing against it as well you dolt.
Every single ISP came in their pants when the restrictions were relaxed because they are now free to do virtually whatever they want. You say the free market will fix this and maybe that's true, but the ISP field is by no means a "free market." There are incredibly high barriers to entry and the companies already existing in it can form an oligopoly and bully any other competitors out of business.
I know most of this is going over your head though, so I'm not sure why I even bother wasting my time. Anyway, at the end of the day I will pick Amazon, Google, Apple, etc over Verizon and Comcast.

>I will pick Amazon, Google, Apple, etc over Verizon and Comcast.
and that is why you are stupid

NN is about more than /vg/
>liberal president
>conservative website's attempt to get more bandwidth gets lost in FCC/NN red tape, think dial up
>liberal website's attempt gets through, think streaming video in 4k
It also works the other way.
>"The government wouldn't do that!"
LOIS LERNER and if you don't know who that is, you play too much vidya

why? They are users of the internet just like us. In this scenario the two sides are:
>internet users (individuals and any companies that rely on the internet)
>internet providers (companies that directly profit based off of how much they can charge for access)

Neither choice is ideal, but what reason is there to choose ISPs that have monopolized the internet?

>I'm against the cyberpunk corpo bootlicking!
>Megacorps are private citizens just like us!

Attached: 1536355351688.jpg (1280x720, 128K)

>he thinks everything is black and white
Anyway I'd rather you give actual points than both of us just shitposting for no reason. Seriously, why do you think giving more freedom to ISPs is a better idea than forcing an equal playing field?
I genuinely don't understand the logic.

The state monopolized the internet, ISPs don't keep new ISPs from forming.

ISPs and the state are intertwined.

Isn't it interesting how much leftists are huge statists who want a massive, interventionalist government that micromanages all aspects of you life?

Oh no, I'm not the person you're arguing with, I'm here just for the shitposting. My political knowledge begins and ends with ancap memes. I just vote repulican every time on every thing because I don't like brown people. They just creep me out.

Attached: PibOHfKeZF3oq.jpg (320x207, 19K)

youtube.com/watch?v=CVcSXJtF6Ug
youtube.com/watch?v=y5lGDrLlEeE

he puts it into better words than i can. incidentally, i also happen to remember the internet world before NN was brought into legislation, and i never saw any instances of throttling that were overtly detrimental to the point where i actually noticed it. yes, i can see the argument of, "Hey, they're going to subtly creep in the throttling and exert their control over the internet more and more to the point where you'll have to buy access to Youtube, or something" but that's neither here nor there at the moment; the kind of "slippery slope" being offered here doesn't make much sense to me because the amount of outrage caused by customers in such a scenario would certainly cause them to move to another competitor. additionally, NN always had loopholes within its legislation that ISPs could've used to throttle their customers anyway -- it was poor legislation through-and-through on an objective level.

with ISPs you purchase their services, and with Google you are the service. i inherently respect the former more than the latter, especially when one considers how tied up Google is with the government these days, their leaked recordings where they openly state manipulating their consumers for their own political ends, as well as the recent Chinese scandals. with my ISP, as opposed to Google and Facebook, i am at least given a plethora of options where i live, and i am comparatively more certain that they aren't selling off my data to every advertiser out there like i'm some sort of whore.

>Jow Forums has and will always be Reddit.
I know.

by far the most retarded thing I will read today, and it's 1am. whose lobbying and money do you think made the internet this way?
This

This is a meme.

Jow Forums has always leaned libertarian actually. Some fell for the muh net neutrality meme, others of us work in the industry and know you can't be completely neutral when managing a network.

>The state monopolized the internet, ISPs don't keep new ISPs from forming.
People this dumb are allowed to vote.

>Guys we need the government to take control of this away from the ISPs because the ISPs control the government.
Yes, brilliant. Couldn't possibly go wrong. Don't reduce government intervention, no no no. Pile more on. This time it will work. The last time just wasn't REAL intervention because the ISPs lobbied for it.

Attached: why_use_flour_when_you_can_just_use_flower.png (339x300, 196K)

After watching the video you listed, I have to say I disagree. They really only look at this issue on the surface (netflix accounting for a shit ton of traffic) without really reading between the lines.
It's interesting that you yourself bring up the slippery slope argument which is exactly the opposition, but I don't think you have any good rationale for dismissing it.
>but that's neither here nor there at the moment
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by this. Are you saying that the ISPs have not done anything bad yet?
>doesn't make much sense to me because the mount of outrage caused by customers in such a scenario would certainly cause them to move to another competitor
Yes, as I mentioned earlier if this actually was a free market this would 100% be the case and I'd agree with you. HOWEVER, the barriers of entry to become a large scale ISP are astronomically high, It is not something that a startup can do because there are immense initial capital costs required, and the existing Leviathan sized ISPs can lobby against any other smaller competitors rising up.

Now moving on to the actual issue. The reason I see this as problematic is that it allows ISPs to now start throttling content arbitrarily. You say in your post that they haven't done that, but that doesn't seem like a good argument to me. We've seen time and time again that corporations will do whatever they can get away with, no matter how unethical, and often even cross over into illegal activities. Just because comcast and verizon have not done something yet, doesn't mean they never will. In my opinion it makes more sense to have restrictions on them to ensure that they can NEVER throttle traffic arbitrarily.

You've explained why you think repealing it is ok which I've explained why I disagree with, but can you say why you think it's *bad* to have it? Everything in your post seems to suggest it's unnecessary but not actually harmful in any way.

This smug motherfucker. We’ll make sure his executioner (((accidentally))) picks up a dull axe on the day of rolling corporatist heads

No company ever got away with shady shit without a willing and compliant government.

and our government is more than willing and compliant, since they've just revoked the only thing preventing ISPs from behaving unethically.

That's right goy, you don't understand so just let the men in suits decide mmk?

^This. Even though I don't always defend the actions of some companies like Disney, they've never created a gulag archipelago or an Auschwitz, but governments sure did.

based

>give it time
You mean from the 1970s to 2015?
Only record of net neutrality would have actually helped is when Comcast blocked bittorrent. Even then they had a good argument.
People were taking up a majority of total bandwidth by using a service that less than 5% of people uses, but limits the connectivity for the rest of the 95%

Net neutrality literally never protected against data caps. T-Mobile always had a 4g data cap limit. Then they knock you down to 2g. Same reason for the above

You guys are fucking retards

The people elected by conservashit nutjobs are willing and compliant to their own interests

This. Doesn't help that Jow Forums has the absolute of freetards every day.

So are the people elected by libtards. Bernie Sanders summers at his 6 million dollar beach house. No champion of the people has a 6 million dollar beach house. You get a 6 million dollar beach house by selling out, same way you get into office im the first place.

>as I mentioned earlier if this actually was a free market this would 100% be the case and I'd agree with you. HOWEVER, the barriers of entry to become a large scale ISP are astronomically high, It is not something that a startup can do because there are immense initial capital costs required, and the existing Leviathan sized ISPs can lobby against any other smaller competitors rising up.
i don't know how it is where you live, but, where I live (Texas), there are quite a few options in my area, around 5-8 iirc. now, sure, AT&T has the "monopoly" in the area insofar as its marketshare goes, but there are options everywhere, and i know for a fact that they're good options because i have peers that utilized them because they got frustrated with Uverse for one reason or another. i can see your side of the argument in a world where the entirety of the US is controlled by the big 3, but we aren't at that level yet. yes, it's very possible we'll get there, but i am optimistic we won't. irrational optimism. make of that what you will.
>but can you say why you think it's *bad* to have it?
in the previous legislation it was bad because it had loopholes that ISPs could have abused regardless and i do think that it's too beneficial to monopoly companies like Netflix, Google, Facebook, etc. i never cared about the NN vs Anti-NN argument that much because i saw it as a fight between big corporations, and not necessarily Google and the rest looking out for the little people (they don't care about the little people). on top of that, i really, really doubt that NN will be gone for long. after Trump gets out in 2024, we'll likely have a cyclical return to a Democrat US (as these things do tend to go in cycles) and i imagine the corporate lobbying of Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc. will be enough for NN to come back in one form or another.

what i would like to see is legislation that takes the form of NN somewhat while not being so beneficial to mega corps like Google.

I’ll take pathfinder, playground and marketplace please. Oh and throw in a few monster energy drinks while you’re at it

where you're wrong is where you assume I don't think both the govenment and ISP's are the issue.

>where I live (Texas), there are quite a few options in my area, around 5-8 iirc
That's surprising to me. I live in NJ and most neighborhoods have 1-2 options for an ISP, so there's really not much choice. I guess your perspective can change a lot based on where you live.

>had loopholes that ISPs could have abused
but those loopholes would have allowed them to do what they can do now right? So I still don't really see how that's supposed to be a bad thing.
>saw it as a fight between big corporations
so what made you pick the side of the ISPs? I think I explained why I choose to side with google/facebook/whatever since in this context they are users of the internet just like individuals, so their interests should align with ours.

Anyway, just wanted to say I appreciate you giving legitimate responses. Even though it's unlikely either of us will convince the other I like this more than posting smug anime girls and one line of greentext.

>anti-capitalist
What if I don't want to starve to death like the people of Russia, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Austria, Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Madagascar, Kampuchea, North Korea, Tuvan, Manchuria, Gambia Haiti, Zanzibar, Vietnam, Mahabad, Estonia, China, Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, and Laos? You know, since anti-capitalism has literally never worked in all of human history. What then?

>China
user they're still a world power. You need to wait until it falls apart from political infighting. Or just wait until the Gobi Desert expands to the countries farm land and mass starvation happens.

>so what made you pick the side of the ISPs?
well, like i said i just didn't think the lack of NN legislation would affect me personally. i wouldn't say i'm on the side of ISPs, though. if i am, it's very lukewarm. what i'm not lukewarm to, though, is seeing Google and other similar service providers suffer a bit; now *them* i don't like one bit. you could say this made me biased in this argument, and you'd be right.

overall i just don't think the concerns raised will really match up to the reality. i do think that in a scenario where we had a prolonged absence of NN (i'm talking decades here) that the possibility of the "slow crawl" towards "unethical" practices would rise. as you (?) said in a previous post, doing so now would be too conspicuous if such was their intent. as i previously explained though, i simply cannot see NN being gone that long due to the constant tug-of-war in the US political landscape.

and, yeah, appreciate the calm conversation as well. feel free to argue some more to my post, but i'll have to see it in the morning. cheers.

You can't beat the ISPs by giving the government power. It's like trying to beat the Nazi party by giving power to the Chancellor of Germany circa 1939. You can only hurt them by weakening the government that gives them strength, even if the only group you can give that power to is them. Sure it would be ideal to repeal all the ISP monopoly protecting laws at once but that isn't how it works. You just need to take them down whenever you can, whatever they are.

You forgot several. Most notably Zimbabwe.

So the 60 million Chinese who starved to death under communism don't count because the country didn't implode?

Attached: nigger nigged his last nugger.png (500x366, 80K)

>Jow Forums has and will always be pro net-neutrality.
fuck off statist bootlicker

>You can't beat the ISPs by giving the government power
I don't really get this view. The government legally already has power over ISPs. Them acting on it isn't changing power dynamics in any way.

FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK WHITE PEOPLE

>Jow Forums filename
This. ISPs and other telecoms can be regulated by the state.

The only way to stop the ISPs from Jewing everyone is to force them to compete. They don't have to compete because the government protects their monopoly. The government protects their monopoly because it is full of people who like being given money for doing basically nothing. No law or election can change this. Any and all government regulation will be used to protect the monopoly. Net Neutrality specifically protects the monopoly by artificially raising the cost of entry since the ISP has to foot the bill for Google, Netflix, and the other megacorps. The more freedom you give to ISPs, the less protected their monopoly is, the more they have to lower prices to make it unprofitable for new players to enter the ISP industry.

You fool. They own the state. The state is just a bunch of people who are legally allowed to take their bribes as "donations". More regulatory power just means more protections for their monopoly. Regulation is never actually in your favor because that would not be profitable for the ISP or their friends in Washington.

>The only way to stop the ISPs from Jewing everyone is to force them to compete. They don't have to compete because the government protects their monopoly. The government protects their monopoly because it is full of people who like being given money for doing basically nothing. No law or election can change this
I agree
>Any and all government regulation will be used to protect the monopoly
I disagree. The regulations under Obama administration LITERALLY were there to restrict what the ISPs could do. How is that "protecting the monopoly"? A smaller ISP that pops up locally is not going to have to cater to massive giants like google or netflix anyway, so there's no point in assuming they are driving the entry cost up.

>Net Neutrality specifically protects the monopoly by artificially raising the cost of entry since the ISP has to foot the bill
>Regulation is never actually in your favor
It protects websites and corporations like Google and Netflix and people posting here because they can't charge based on content. Bribes are a problem but this is one example of state regulation being okay. [spoilersdont'tworkon/g/]It would be nice if internet was nationalized but that's not happening anytime soon.[/spoilersdont'tworkon/g/]

>A smaller ISP that pops up locally is not going to have to cater to massive giants like google or netflix anyway
How exactly did you end up on Jow Forums? I am in Jow Forums, right?

Protecting Google and Netflix means raising the barrier of entry. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.
ISPs can't fuck you over at all if they have to worry about being better than an upstart or being driven out of business. If Commiecast CEO says no Jow Forums because Hiroshimoot banned him then Timother Dickshits can start a rival ISP that doesn't fuck with its users and drive Commiecast into the ground, or more realistically Commiecast will play nice rather than go under. With regulation they can fuck you over with their monopoly prices and make hand over fist while still sending checks to """your""" """representatives""".
>nationalized
Oh yes, because nationalization isn't just the ideal monopoly. There was once a free market alternative to the US Postal Service. It was both faster and cheaper, purportedly had better customer service, and was actually driving USPS out of business. So congress made it illegal to compete with them because they wanted that revenue. The free market almost always makes sure the best business wins. The only problem is when stupid consumers don't know what's good for them and fall for irrational appeals rather than educating themselves, i.e. Apple. I could see this happening in ISPs as well but the current situation is far worse than even tech illiterate farmers would allow. They know $20 is lower than $60 at least, even if they aren't quite sure what a megabit is.

>Thinks someone can startup a ISP currently
>Doesn't like the USPS
Off the fucking board

yikes

backwards as fuck, like everything from the left

eat shit amerifag

underrated post, based, and redpilled.

This is correct

This. If it weren't for Hilldawg people would remember that Lois Lerner was the original Magical Self-Deleting Emails™ scandal. The government is filled with partisans who can and will use every tool in the bureaucracy available against those they perceive as enemies. The only solution is to stop feeding the beast.

This thread convinced me that people who use Jow Forums or any political subreddit should be put into forced labor camps.

Attached: 1252935685011.png (414x435, 198K)

Said disgusting attention whoring anime pedo fag.

>complaining about anime
>on Jow Forums

So when were you diagnosed with autism?

Attached: 1b74d7a5da1fcc2463af6f70ef0796f4_1.jpg (684x966, 340K)

$30 and I don't have to pay for streaming services that I don't use? Sign me up.

pic related
I think they were being sarcasm

Attached: C3owNYyUEAEeEV2.jpg (1200x900, 92K)

I realize that pretty well, speak for youself.